Well, there's a long story behind this... Depp dt has a nice
'reality cracking' site on the web (I don't publish it because he did not ask for it, yet all
good net seekers will be able to find it) and I did not publish some of his
previous essays because I had the impression that they were too much 'passionate' and
(maybe I'm wrong) IMO a real "reality cracking" essay should be always "cool" and should
avoid the tragical (and comical)
destiny of weird nerds everywhere: taking themselves too seriously. So I didn't publish
some previous essays, but I am publishing this one... and I hope somebody else will
BUILD on this in order to get a more correct (or should I say a more 'reversed'?)
evaluation of our conditioning patterns.

* - altruism, giving without any personal benefit.

In Britain, and quite possibly worldwide(?), students are actually
taught
at colleges and universities that altruism does not exist. It happened
to
me when I did my degree some time ago and it happened to a friend taking
his degree last year. I think that it's taught to new students before
they
are practiced at analysing an argument and before they are encouraged to
have their own opinions and to argue with their lecturers. It is
presented
as accepted, objective fact without a real opportunity to disagree.

The argument goes like this. Social Psychology's 'reward theory' states
that for every act of giving, there is an equivalent 'value' received in
return so there can never be altruism because the giver always receives
something of equal value. Just search the net on altruism and I'm sure
that
you'll see the argument. The trouble with the argument which seems lost
on
the academics is that it's a totally 'tautological' or circular
argument -
you are within the argument - it can't be disproved because of the way
it's
stated. Now, if the argument was stated that altruism does exist, that
there is never such a thing as an equal exchange - that could not ever
be
disproved either.

Let's take an example. I'm on a crowded bus and I give up my seat to
allow
a pregnant woman to sit. Now according to 'reward theory', I didn't do
this
because I am willing to help strangers when I'm able to and when it's
fairly easy to do so. No, I received from this 'exchange', good feelings
for myself equal to the value of the effort expended. What nonsense, but
the trouble is I'm within the argument which ASSUMES that a trade occurs
and defines the reward in terms of that trade.

To disprove this theory, people are forced to find an example where
there
is obviously no reward for the 'altruism'. The normal example is the
anonymous kidney donor. Oh no, say the reward theorists, he receives a
kidney's-worth of good feelings. And any other example you think about,
freeware, helping a blind person across the road, anything at all. The
point is that the theory is based on the assumption that it's innate
for
people to trade. It supports the dominant Capitalist ideology and
states that you don't and can't do anything for nothing and that
everything
has it's price.

Is there any hope for humanity if we teach and are taught that we cannot
relate to each other than on this basis?. The implications are quite
horrendous - that the concept of charity does not exist, that economic
aid
requires an economic return (which is often the case in practice) but I
think the main point is that we are being taught to be fantastically
selfish - worse than that - we are being taught that there is no other
way
except to be fantastically selfish, individualistic and self-centered.

By accepting this teaching we are transformed into individual consuming
units. Individual consuming units are important because they mean
greater
demand for consumer products. However, they also mean loneliness,
solitude
and alienation from others. Can you really love someone on this basis? I
think that it was Caesar who originally developed the theory of divide
and
conquer ...